_parlor_-servants; who generally differ as widely in their appearance and treatment from the cooks and scullions in the kitchen, as parlor furniture does from the kitchen utensils. Certain servants are assigned to the parlor, just as certain articles of furniture are selected for it, _to be seen_–and it is no less ridiculous to infer that the kitchen scullions are clothed and treated like those servants who wait at the table, and are in the presence of guests, than to infer that the kitchen is set out with sofas, ottomans, piano-fortes, and full-length mirrors, because the parlor is. But the house-slaves are only a fraction of the whole number. The _field-hands_ constitute the great mass of the slaves, and these the visitors rarely get a glimpse at. They are away at their work by day-break, and do not return to their huts till dark. Their huts are commonly at some distance from the master’s mansion, and the fields in which they labor, generally much farther, and out of sight. If the visitor traverses the plantation, care is taken that he does not go alone; if he expresses a wish to see it, the horses are saddled, and the master or his son gallops the rounds with him; if he expresses a desire to see the slaves at work, his conductor will know _where_ to take him, and _when_, and _which_ of them to show; the overseer, too, knows quite too well the part he has to act on such occasions, to shock the uninitiated ears of the visitors with the shrieks of his victims. It is manifest that visitors can see only the least repulsive parts of slavery, inasmuch as it is wholly at the option of the master, what parts to show them; as a matter of necessity, he can see only the _outside_–and that, like the outside of doorknobs and andirons is furbished up to be _looked at_. So long as it is human nature to wear _the best side out_, so long the northern guests of southern slaveholders will see next to nothing of the reality of slavery. Those visitors may still keep up their autumnal migrations to the slave states, and, after a hasty survey of the tinsel hung before the curtain of slavery, without a single glance behind it, and at the paint and varnish that _cover up_ dead men’s bones, and while those who have hoaxed them with their smooth stories and white-washed specimens of slavery, are tittering at their gullibility, they return in the spring on the same fool’s-errand with their predecessors, retailing their lesson, and mouthing the praises of the masters, and the comforts of the slaves. They now become village umpires in all disputes about the condition of the slaves, and each thence forward ends all controversies with his oracular, “I’ve _seen_, and sure I ought to know.”
[Footnote 23: Well saith the Scripture, “A gift blindeth the eyes.” The slaves understand this, though the guest may not; they know very well that they have no sympathy to expect from their master’s guests; that the good cheer of the “big house,” and the attentions shown them, will generally commit them in their master’s favor, and against themselves. Messrs. Thome and Kimball, in their late work, state the following fact, in illustration of this feeling among the negro apprentices in Jamaica.
“The governor of one of the islands, shortly after his arrival, dined with one of the wealthiest proprietors. The next day one of the negroes of the estate said to another, “De new gubner been _poison’d_.” “What dat you say?” inquired the other in astonishment, “De gubner been _poison’d_! Dah, now!–How him poisoned?” “_Him eat massa’s turtle soup last night_,” said the shrewd negro. The other took his meaning at once; and his sympathy for the governor was turned into concern for himself, when he perceived that the poison was one from which he was likely to suffer more than his excellency.”–_Emancipation in the West Indies_, p. 334.]
But all northern visitors at the south are not thus easily gulled. Many of them, as the preceding pages show, have too much sense to be caught with chaff.
We may add here, that those classes of visitors whose representations of the treatment of slaves are most influential in moulding the opinions of the free states, are ministers of the gospel, agents of benevolent societies, and teachers who have traveled and temporarily resided in the slave states–classes of persons less likely than any others to witness cruelties, because slaveholders generally take more pains to keep such visitors in ignorance than others, because their vocations would furnish them fewer opportunities for witnessing them, and because they come in contact with a class of society in which fewer atrocities are committed than in any other, and that too, under circumstances which make it almost impossible for them to witness those which are actually committed.
Of the numerous classes of persons from the north who temporarily reside in the slave states, the mechanics who find employment on the _plantations_, are the only persons who are in circumstances to look “behind the scenes.” Merchants, pedlars, venders of patents, drovers, speculators, and almost all descriptions of persons who go from the free states to the south to make money see little of slavery, except _upon the road_, at public inns, and in villages and cities.
Let not the reader infer from what has been said, that the _parlor_-slaves, chamber-maids, &c. in the slave states are not treated with cruelty–far from it. They often experience terrible inflictions; not generally so terrible or so frequent as the field-hands, and very rarely in the presence of guests[24] House-slaves are for the most part treated far better than plantation-slaves, and those under the immediate direction of the master and mistress, than those under overseers and drivers. It is quite worthy of remark, that of the thousands of northern men who have visited the south, and are always lauding the kindness of slaveholders and the comfort of the slaves, protesting that they have never seen cruelties inflicted on them, &c. each perhaps, without exception, has some story to tell which reveals, better perhaps than the most barbarous butchery could do, a public sentiment toward slaves, showing that the most cruel inflictions must of necessity be the constant portion of the slaves.
[Footnote 24: Rev. JOSEPH M. SADD, a Presbyterian clergyman, in Castile, Genesee county, N.Y. recently from Missouri, where he has preached five years, in the midst of slaveholders, says, in a letter just received, speaking of the pains taken by slaveholders to conceal from the eyes of strangers and visitors, the cruelties which they inflict upon their slaves–
“It is difficult to be an eye-witness of these things; the master and mistress, almost invariably punish their slaves only in the presence of themselves and other slaves.”]
Though facts of this kind lie thick in every corner, the reader will, we are sure, tolerate even a needless illustration, if told that it is from the pen of N.P. Rogers, Esq. of Concord, N.H. who, whatever he writes, though it be, as in this case, a mere hasty letter, always finds readers to the end.
“At a court session at Guilford, Stafford county, N.H. in August, 1837, the Hon. Daniel M. Durell, of Dover, formerly Chief Justice of the Common Pleas for that state, and a member of Congress, was charging the abolitionists, in presence of several gentlemen of the bar, at their boarding house, with exaggerations and misrepresentations of slave treatment at the south. ‘One instance in particular,’ he witnessed, he said, where he ‘knew they misrepresented. It was in the Congregational meeting house at Dover. He was passing by, and saw a crowd entering and about the door; and on inquiry, found that _abolition was going on in there_. He stood in the entry for a moment, and found the Englishman, Thompson, was holding forth. The fellow was speaking of the treatment of slaves; and he said it was no uncommon thing for masters, when exasperated with the slave, to hang him up by the two thumbs, and flog him. I knew the fellow lied there,’ said the judge, ‘for I had traveled through the south, from Georgia north, and I never saw a single instance of the kind. The fellow said it was a common thing.’ ‘Did you see any _exasperated masters_, Judge,’ said I, ‘in your journey?’ ‘No sir,’ said he, ‘not an individual instance.’ ‘You hardly are able to convict Mr. Thompson of falsehood, then, Judge,’ said I, ‘if I understood you right. He spoke, as I understood you, of _exasperated masters_–and you say you did not see any. Mr. Thompson did not say it was common for masters in good humor to hang up their slaves.’ The Judge did not perceive the materiality of the distinction. ‘Oh, they misrepresent and lie about this treatment of the niggers,’ he continued. ‘In going through all the states I visited, I do not now remember a single instance of cruel treatment. Indeed, I remember of seeing but one nigger struck, during my whole journey. There was one instance. We were riding in the stage, pretty early one morning, and we met a black fellow, driving a span of horses, and a load (I think he said) of hay. The fellow turned out before we got to him, clean down into the ditch, as far as he could get. He knew, you see, what to depend on, if he did not give the road. Our driver, as we passed the fellow, fetched him a smart crack with his whip across the chops. He did not make any noise, though I guess it hurt him some–he grinned.–Oh, no! these fellows exaggerate. The niggers, as a general thing, are kindly treated. There may be exceptions, but I saw nothing of it.’ (By the way, the Judge did not know there were any abolitionists present.) ‘What did you _do_ to the driver, Judge,’ said I, ‘for striking that man?’ ‘Do,’ said he, ‘I did nothing to him, to be sure.’ ‘What did you _say_ to him, sir?’ said I. ‘Nothing,’ he replied: ‘I said nothing to him.’ ‘What did the other passengers do?’ said I. ‘Nothing, sir,’ said the Judge. ‘The fellow turned out the white of his eye, but he did not make any noise.’ ‘Did the driver say any thing, Judge, when he struck the man?’ ‘Nothing,’ said the Judge, ‘only he _damned him_, and told him he’d learn him to keep out of the reach of his whip.’ ‘Sir,’ said I, ‘if George Thompson had told this story, in the warmth of an anti-slavery speech, I should scarcely have credited it. I have attended many anti-slavery meetings, and I never heard an instance of such _cold-blooded, wanton, insolent_, DIABOLICAL cruelty as this; and, sir, if I live to attend another meeting, I shall relate this, and give Judge Durell’s name as the witness of it.’ An infliction of the most insolent character, entirely unprovoked, on a perfect stranger, who had showed the utmost civility, in giving all the road, and only could not get beyond the long reach of the driver’s whip–and he a stage driver, a class _generous_ next to the sailor, in the sober hour of morning–and _borne in silence_–and _told to show that the colored man of the south was kindly treated_–all evincing, to an unutterable extent, that the temper of the south toward the slave is merciless, even to _diabolism_–and that the north regards him with, if possible, a more fiendish indifference still!”
It seems but an act of simple justice to say, in conclusion, that many of the slaveholders from whom our northern visitors derive their information of the “good treatment” of the slave, may not design to deceive them. Such visitors are often, perhaps generally brought in contact with the better class of slaveholders, whose slaves are really better fed, clothed, lodged, and housed; more moderately worked; more seldom whipped, and with less severity, than the slaves generally. Those masters in speaking of the good condition of their slaves, and asserting that they are treated _well_, use terms that are not _absolute_ but _comparative_: and it may be, and doubtless often is true that their stares are treated well _as slaves_, in comparison with the treatment received by slaves generally. So the overseers of such slaves, and the slaves themselves, may, without lying or designing to mislead, honestly give the same testimony. As the great body of slaves within their knowledge _fare worse_, it is not strange that, when speaking of the treatment on their own plantation, they should call it _good_.
OBJECTION V.–‘IT IS FOR THE INTEREST OF THE MASTERS TO TREAT THEIR SLAVES WELL.’
So it is for the interest of the drunkard to quit his cups; for the glutton to curb his appetite; for the debauchee to bridle his lust; for the sluggard to be up betimes; for the spendthrift to be economical, and for all sinners to stop sinning. Even if it were for the interest of masters to treat their slaves well, he must be a novice who thinks _that_ a proof that the slaves _are_ well treated. The whole history of man is a record of real interests sacrificed to present gratification. If all men’s actions were consistent with their best interests, folly and sin would be words without meaning.
If the objector means that it is for the pecuniary interests of masters to treat their slaves well, and thence infers their good treatment, we reply, that though the love of money is strong, yet appetite and lust, pride, anger and revenge, the love of power and honor, are each an overmatch for it; and when either of them is roused by a sudden stimulant, the love of money worsted in the grapple with it. Look at the hourly lavish outlays of money to procure a momentary gratification for those passions and appetites. As the desire for money is, in the main, merely a desire for the means of gratifying _other_ desires, or rather for one of the means, it must be the _servant_ not the sovereign of those desires, to whose gratification its only use is to minister. But even if the love of money were the strongest human passion, who is simple enough to believe that it is all the time so powerfully excited, that no other passion or appetite can get the mastery over it? Who does not know that gusts of rage, revenge, jealousy and lust drive it before them as a tempest tosses a feather?
The objector has forgotten his first lessons; they taught him that it is human nature to gratify the _uppermost_ passion: and is _prudence_ the uppermost passion with slaveholders, and self-restraint their great characteristic? The strongest feeling of any moment is the sovereign of that moment, and rules. Is a propensity to practice _economy_ the predominant feeling with slaveholders? Ridiculous! Every northerner knows that slaveholders are proverbial for lavish expenditures, never higgling about the _price_ of a gratification. Human passions have not, like the tides, regular ebbs and flows, with their stationary, high and low water marks. They are a dominion convulsed with revolutions; coronations and dethronements in ceasless succession–each ruler a usurper and a despot. Love of money gets a snatch at the sceptre as well as the rest, not by hereditary right, but because, in the fluctuations of human feelings, a chance wave washes him up to the throne, and the next perhaps washes him off without time to nominate his successor. Since, then, as a matter of fact, a host of appetites and passions do hourly get the better of love of money, what protection does the slave find in his master’s _interest_, against the sweep of his passions and appetites? Besides, a master can inflict upon his slave horrible cruelties without perceptibly injuring his health, or taking time from his labor, or lessening his value as property. Blows with a small stick give more acute pain, than with a large one. A club bruises, and benumbs the nerves, while a switch, neither breaking nor bruising the flesh, instead of blunting the sense of feeling, wakes up and stings to torture all the susceptibilities of pain. By this kind of infliction, more actual cruelty can be perpetrated in the giving of pain at the instant, than by the most horrible bruisings and lacerations; and that, too, with little comparative hazard to the slave’s health, or to his value as property, and without loss of time from labor. Even giving to the objection all the force claimed for it, what protection is it to the slave? It _professes_ to shield the slave from such treatment alone, as would either lay him aside from labor, or injure his health, and thus lessen his value as a working animal, making him a _damaged article_ in the market. Now, is nothing _bad treatment_ of a human being except that which produces these effects? Does the fact that a man’s constitution is not actually shattered, and his life shortened by his treatment, prove that he is treated well? Is no treatment cruel except what sprains muscles, or cuts sinews, or bursts blood vessels, or breaks bones, and thus lessens a man’s value as a working animal?
A slave may get blows and kicks every hour in the day, without having his constitution broken, or without suffering sensibly in his health, or flesh, or appetite, or power to labor. Therefore, beaten and kicked as he is, he must be treated _well_, according to the objector, since the master’s _interest_ does not suffer thereby.
Finally, the objector virtually maintains that all possible privations and inflictions suffered by slaves, that do not actually cripple their power to labor, and make them ‘damaged merchandize,’ are to be set down as ‘good treatment,’ and that nothing is _bad_ treatment except what produces these effects.
Thus we see that even if the slave were effectually shielded from all those inflictions, which, by lessening his value as property, would injure the interests of his master, he would still nave no protection against numberless and terrible cruelties. But we go further, and maintain that in respect to large classes of slaves, it is for the _interest_ of their masters to treat them with barbarous inhumanity.
1. _Old slaves._ It would be for the interest of the masters to shorten their days.
2. _Worn out slaves._ Multitudes of slaves by being overworked, have their constitutions broken in middle life. It would be _economical_ for masters to starve or flog such to death.
3. _The incurably diseased and maimed._ In all such cases it would be _cheaper_ for masters to buy poison than medicine.
4. _The blind, lunatics, and idiots_. As all such would be a tax on him, it would be for his interest to shorten their days.
5. _The deaf and dumb, and persons greatly deformed._ Such might or might not be serviceable to him; many of them at least would be a burden, and few men carry burdens when they can throw them off.
6. _Feeble infants._ As such would require much nursing, the time, trouble and expense necessary to raise them, would generally be more than they would be worth as _working animals_. How many such infants would be likely to be ‘raised,’ from _disinterested_ benevolence? To this it may be added that in the far south and south west, it is notoriously for the interest of the master not to ‘raise’ slaves at all. To buy slaves when nearly grown, from the northern slave states, would be _cheaper_ than to raise them. This is shown in the fact, that mothers with infants sell for less in those states than those without them. And when slave-traders purchase such in the upper country, it is notorious that they not unfrequently either sell their infants, or give them away. Therefore it would be for the _interest_ of the masters, throughout that region, to have all the new-born children left to perish. It would also be for their interest to make such arrangements as effectually to separate the sexes, or if that were not done, so to overwork the females as to prevent childbearing.
7. _Incorrigible slaves_. On most of the large plantations, there are, more or less, incorrigible slaves,–that is, slaves who _will not_ be profitable to their masters–and from whom torture can extort little but defiance.[25] These are frequently slaves of uncommon minds, who feel so keenly the wrongs of slavery that their proud spirits spurn their chains and defy their tormentors.
[Footnote 25: Advertisements like the following are not unfrequent in the southern papers.
_From the Elizabeth (N.C.) Phenix, Jan. 5, 1839._ “The subscriber offers for sale his blacksmith NAT, 28 years of age, and _remarkably large and likely_. The only cause of my selling him is I CANNOT CONTROL HIM. _Hertford, Dec.5, 1838._ J. GORDON.”]
They have commonly great sway over the other slaves, their example is contagious, and their influence subversive of ‘plantation discipline.’ Consequently they must be made a warning to others. It is for the _interest_ of the masters (at least they believe it to be) to put upon such slaves iron collars and chains, to brand and crop them; to disfigure, lacerate, starve and torture them–in a word, to inflict upon them such vengeance as shall strike terror into the other slaves. To this class may be added the incorrigibly thievish and indolent; it would be for the interest of the masters to treat them with such severity as would deter others from following their example.
7. _Runaways._ When a slave has once runaway from his master and is caught, he is thenceforward treated with severity. It is for the interest of the master to make an example of him, by the greatest privations and inflictions.
8. _Hired slaves._ It is for the interest of those who hire slaves to get as much out of them as they can; the temptation to overwork them is powerful. If it be said that the master could, in that case, recover damages, the answer is, that damages would not be recoverable in law unless actual injury–enough to impair the power of the slave to labor, be _proved._ And this ordinarily would be impossible, unless the slave has been worked so greatly beyond his strength as to produce some fatal derangement of the vital functions. Indeed, as all who are familiar with such cases in southern courts well know, the proof of actual injury to the slave, so as to lessen his value, is exceedingly difficult to make out, and every hirer of slaves can overwork them, give them insufficient food, clothing, and shelter, and inflict upon them nameless cruelties with entire impunity. We repeat then that it is for the _interest_ of the hirer to push his slaves to their utmost strength, provided he does not drive them to such an extreme, that their constitutions actually give way under it, while in his hands. The supreme court of Maryland has decided that, ‘There must be _at least a diminution of the faculty of the slave for bodily labor_ to warrant an action by the master.’–_1 Harris and Johnson’s Reports, 4._
9. _Slaves under overseers whose wages are proportioned to the crop which they raise._ This is an arrangement common in the slave states, and in its practical operation is equivalent to a bounty on _hard driving_–a virtual premium offered to overseers to keep the slaves whipped up to the top of their strength. Even where the overseer has a fixed salary, irrespective of the value of the crop which he takes off, he is strongly tempted to overwork the slaves, as those overseers get the highest wages who can draw the largest income from a plantation with a given number of slaves; so that we may include in this last class of slaves, the majority of all those who are under overseers, whatever the terms on which those overseers are employed.
Another class of slaves may be mentioned; we refer to the slaves of masters who _bet_ upon their crops. In the cotton and sugar region there is a fearful amount of this desperate gambling, in which, though money is the ostensible stake and forfeit, human life is the real one. The length to which this rivalry is carried at the south and south west, the multitude of planters who engage in it, and the recklessness of human life exhibited in driving the murderous game to its issue, cannot well be imagined by one who has not lived in the midst of it. Desire of gain is only one of the motives that stimulates them;–the _eclat_ of having made the largest crop with a given number of hands, is also a powerful stimulant; the southern newspapers, at the crop season, chronicle carefully the “cotton brag,” and the “crack cotton picking,” and “unparalleled driving,” &c. Even the editors of professedly religious papers, cheer on the melee and sing the triumphs of the victor. Among these we recollect the celebrated Rev. J.N. Maffit, recently editor of a religious paper at Natchez, Miss. in which he took care to assign a prominent place, and capitals to “THE COTTON BRAG.” The testimony of Mr. Bliss, page 38, details some of the particulars of this _betting_ upon crops. All the preceding classes of slaves are in circumstances which make it “for the _interest_ of their masters,” or those who have the management of them, to treat them cruelly.
Besides the operation of the causes already specified, which make it for the interest of masters and overseers to treat cruelly _certain classes_ of their slaves, a variety of others exist, which make it for their interest to treat cruelly _the great body_ of their slaves. These causes are, the nature of certain kinds of products, the kind of labor required in cultivating and preparing them for market, the best times for such labor, the state of the market, fluctuations in prices, facilities for transportation, the weather, seasons, &c. &c. Some of the causes which operate to produce this are–
1. _The early market_. If the planter can get his crop into market early, he may save thousands which might be lost if it arrived later.
2. _Changes in the market_. A sudden rise in the market with the probability that it will be short, or a gradual fall with a probability that it will be long, is a strong temptation to the master to push his slaves to the utmost, that he may in the one case make all he can, by taking the tide at the flood, and in the other lose as little as may be, by taking it as early as possible in the ebb.
3. _High prices_. Whenever the slave-grown staples bring a high price, as is now the case with cotton, every slaveholder is tempted to overwork his slaves. By forcing them to do double work for a few weeks or months, while the price is up, he can _afford_ to lose a number of them and to lessen the value of all by over-driving. A cotton planter with a hundred vigorous slaves, would have made a profitable speculation, if, during the years ’34, 5, and 6, when the average price of cotton was 17 cents a pound, he had so overworked his slaves that half of them died upon his hands in ’37, when cotton had fallen to six and eight cents. No wonder that the poor slaves pray that cotton and sugar may be cheap. The writer has frequently heard it declared by planters in the lower country, that, it is more profitable to drive the slaves to such over exertion as to _use them up_, in seven or eight years, than to give them only ordinary tasks and protract their lives to the ordinary period.[26]
[Footnote 26: The reader is referred to a variety of facts and testimony on this point on the 39th page of this work.]
4. _Untimely seasons_. When the winter encroaches on the spring, and makes late seed time, the first favorable weather is a temptation to overwork the slaves, too strong to be resisted by those who hold men as mere working animals. So when frosts set in early, and a great amount of work is to be done in a little time, or great loss suffered. So also after a long storm either in seed or crop time, when the weather becomes favorable, the same temptation presses, and in all these cases the master would _save money_ by overdriving his slaves.
5. _Periodical pressure of certain kinds of labor._ The manufacture of sugar is an illustration. In a work entitled “Travels in Louisiana in 1802,” translated from the French, by John Davis, is the following testimony under this head:–
“At the rolling of sugars, an interval of from two to three months, they (the slaves in Louisiana,) work _both night and day_. Abridged of their sleep, they scarcely retire to rest during the whole period” See page 81.
In an article on the agriculture of Louisiana, published in the second number of the “Western Review,” is the following:–“The work is admitted to be severe for the hands, (slaves) requiring, when the process of making sugar is commenced, TO BE PRESSED NIGHT AND DAY.”
It would be for the interest of the sugar planter greatly to overwork his slaves, during the annual process of sugar-making.
The severity of this periodical pressure, in preparing for market other staples of the slave states besides sugar, may be inferred from the following. Mr. Hammond, of South Carolina, in his speech in Congress, Feb. 1. 1836, (See National Intelligencer) said, “In the heat of the crop, the loss of one or two days, would inevitably ruin it.”
6. _Times of scarcity_. Drought, long rain, frost, &c. are liable to cut off the corn crop, upon which the slaves are fed. If this happens when the staple which they raise is at a low price, it is for the interest of the master to put the slave on short rations, thus forcing him to suffer from hunger.
7. _The raising of crops for exportation_. In all those states where cotton and sugar are raised for exportation, it is, for the most part, more profitable to buy provisions for the slaves than to raise them. Where this is the case the slaveholders believe it to be for their interest to give their slaves less food, than their hunger craves, and they do generally give them insufficient sustenance.[27]
[Footnote 27: Hear the testimony of a slaveholder, on this subject, a member of Congress from Virginia, from 1817 to 1830, Hon. Alexander Smyth.
In the debate on the Missouri question in the U.S. Congress, 1819-20, the admission of Missouri to the Union, as a slave state, was urged, among other grounds, as a measure of humanity to the slaves of the south. Mr. Smyth, of Virginia said, “The plan of our opponents seems to be to confine the slave population to the southern states, to the countries where _sugar, cotton, and tobacco_ are cultivated. But, sir, by confining the slaves to a part of the country where crops are raised for exportation, and the bread and meat are _purchased, you doom them to scarcity and hunger_. Is it not obvious that the way to render their situation more comfortable, is to allow them to be taken where there is not the same motive to force the slave to INCESSANT TOIL, that there is in the country where cotton, sugar, and tobacco, are raised for exportation. It is proposed to hem in the blacks _where they are_ HARD WORKED and ILL FED, that they may be rendered unproductive and the race be prevented from increasing. . . . The proposed measure would be EXTREME CRUELTY to the blacks. . . . You would . . . doom them to SCARCITY and HARD LABOR.”–[Speech of Mr. Smyth, Jan. 28, 1820]–See National Intelligencer.
Those states where the crops are raised for exportation, and a large part of the provisions purchased, are, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Western Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, and, to a considerable extent, South Carolina. That this is the case in Louisiana, is shown by the following. “Corn, flour, and bread stuffs, generally are obtained from Kentucky, Ohio;” &c. See “Emigrants Guide through the Valley of the Mississippi,” Page 275. That it is the case with Alabama, appears from the testimony of W. Jefferson Jones, Esq. a lawyer of high standing in Mobile. In a series of articles published by him in the Mobile Morning Chronicle, he says; (See that paper for Aug. 26, 1837.)
“The people of Alabama _export_ what they raise, and _import_ nearly all they consume.” But it seems quite unnecessary to prove, what all persons of much intelligence well know, that the states mentioned export the larger part of what they raise, and import the larger part of what they consume. Now more than _one million of slaves_ are held in those states, and parts of states, where provisions are mainly imported, and consequently they are “_doomed to scarcity and hunger_.”]
Now let us make some estimate of the proportion which the slaves, included in the foregoing _nine classes_, sustain to the whole number, and then of the proportion affected by the operation of the _seven_ causes just enumerated.
It would be nearly impossible to form an estimate of the proportion of the slaves included in a number of these classes, such as the old, the worn out, the incurably diseased, maimed and deformed, idiots, feeble infants, incorrigible slaves, &c. More or less of this description are to be found on all the considerable plantations, and often, many on the same plantation; though we have no accurate data for an estimate, the proportion cannot be less than one in twenty-five of the whole number of slaves, which would give a total of more than _one hundred thousand_. Of some of the remaining classes we have data for a pretty accurate estimate.
1st. _Lunatics_.–Various estimates have been made, founded upon the data procured by actual investigation, prosecuted under the direction of the Legislatures of different States; but the returns have been so imperfect and erroneous, that little reliance can be placed upon them. The Legislature of New Hampshire recently ordered investigations to be made in every town in the state, and the number of insane persons to be reported. A committee of the legislature, who had the subject in charge say, in their report–“From many towns no returns have been received, from others the accounts are erroneous, there being cases _known to the committee_ which escaped the notice of the ‘selectmen.’ The actual number of insane persons is therefore much larger than appears by the documents submitted to the committee.” The Medical Society of Connecticut appointed a committee of their number, composed of some of the most eminent physicians in the state, to ascertain and report the whole number of insane persons in that state. The committee say, in their report, “The number of towns from which returns have been received is seventy, and the cases of insanity which have been noticed in them are five hundred and ten.” The committee add, “fifty more towns remain to be heard from, and if insanity should be found equally prevalent in them, the entire number will scarcely fall short of _one thousand_ in the state.” This investigation was made in 1821, when the population of the state was less than two hundred and eighty thousand. If the estimate of the Medical Society be correct, the proportion of the insane to the whole population would be about one in two hundred and eighty. This strikes us as a large estimate, and yet a committee of the legislature of that state in 1837, reported seven hundred and seven insane persons in the state, who were either wholly or in part supported as _town paupers, or by charity_. It can hardly be supposed that more than _two-thirds_ of the insane in Connecticut belong to families _unable to support them_. On this supposition, the whole number would be greater than the estimate of the Medical Society sixteen years previous, when the population was perhaps thirty thousand less. But to avoid the possibility of an over estimate, let us suppose the present number of insane persons in Connecticut to be only seven hundred.
The population of the state is now probably about three hundred and twenty thousand; according to this estimate, the proportion of the insane to the whole population, would be one to about four hundred and sixty. Making this the basis of our calculation, and estimating the slaves in the United States at two millions, seven hundred thousand, their present probable number, and we come to this result, that there are about six thousand insane persons among the slaves of the United States. We have no adequate data by which to judge whether the proportion of lunatics among slaves is greater or less than among the whites; some considerations favor the supposition that it is less. But the dreadful physical violence to which the slaves are subjected, and the constant sunderings of their tenderest ties, might lead us to suppose that it would be more. The only data in our possession is the official census of Chatham county, Georgia, for 1838, containing the number of lunatics among the whites and the slaves.–(See the Savannah Georgian, July 24, 1838.) According to this census, the number of lunatics among eight thousand three hundred and seventy three whites in the country, is only _two,_ whereas, the number among ten thousand eight hundred and ninety-one slaves, is _fourteen_.
2d. _The Deaf and Dumb._–The proportion of deaf and dumb persons to the other classes of the community, is about one in two thousand. This is the testimony of the directors of the ‘American Asylum for the Deaf and Dumb,’ located at Hartford, Connecticut. Making this the basis of our estimate, there would be one thousand six hundred deaf and dumb persons among the slaves of the United States.
3d. _The Blind._–We have before us the last United States census, from which it appears, that in 1830, the number of blind persons in New Hampshire was one hundred and seventeen, out of a population of two hundred and sixty-nine thousand five hundred and thirty-three. Adopting this as our basis, the number of blind slaves in the United States would be nearly one thousand three hundred.
4th. _Runaways._–Of the proportion of the slaves that run away, to those that do not, and of the proportion of the runaways that are _taken_ to those that escape entirely, it would be difficult to make a probable estimate. Something, however, can be done towards such an estimate. We have before us, in the Grand Gulf (Miss.) Advertiser, for August 2, 1838, a list of runaways that were then in the jails of the two counties of Adams and Warren, in that State; the names, ages, &c. of each one given; and their owners are called upon to take them away. The number of runaways thus taken up and committed in these _two_ counties is FORTY-SIX. The whole number of _counties_ in Mississippi is _fifty-six._ Many of them, however, are thinly populated. Now, without making this the basis of our estimate for the whole slave population in all the state–which would doubtless make the number much too large–we are sure no one who has any knowledge of facts as they are in the south, will charge upon us an over-statement when we say, that of the present generation of slaves, probably _one in thirty_ is of that class–i.e., has at some time, perhaps often, runaway and been retaken; on that supposition the whole number would be not far from NINETY THOUSAND.
5th. _Hired Slaves._–It is impossible to estimate with accuracy the proportion which the hired slaves bear to the whole number. That it is very large all who have resided at the south, or traveled there, with their eyes open, well know. Some of the largest slaveholders in the country, instead of purchasing plantations and working their slaves themselves, hire them out to others. This practice is very common.
Rev. Horace Moulton, a minister of the Methodist Episcopal church in Marlborough, Mass., who lived some years in Georgia, says: “A _large proportion_ of the slave are owned by masters who keep them on purpose to hire out.”
Large numbers of slaves, especially in Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, and Florida, are owned by _non-residents_; thousands of them by northern capitalists, who _hire them out_. These capitalists in many cases own large plantations, which are often leased for a term of years with a ‘stock’ of slaves sufficient to work them.
Multitudes of slaves ‘belonging’ to _heirs_, are hired out by their guardians till such heirs become of age, or by the executors or trustees of persons deceased.
That the reader may form some idea of the large number of slaves that are hired out, we insert below a few advertisements, as a specimen of hundreds in the newspapers of the slave states.
From the “Pensacola Gazette,” May 27.
“NOTICE TO SLAVEHOLDERS. Wanted upon my contract, on the Alabama, Florida, and Georgia Rail Road, FOUR HUNDRED BLACK LABORERS, _for which_ a liberal price will be paid.
R. LORING, _Contractor_.”
The same paper has the following, signed by an officer of the United States.
“WANTED AT THE NAVY YARD, PENSACOLA, SIXTY LABORERS. The OWNERS to subsist and quarter them beyond the limits of the yard. Persons having Laborers to hire, will apply to the Commanding Officer.
W.K. LATIMER.”
From the “Richmond (Va.) Enquirer,” April 10, 1838.
“LABORERS WANTED.–The James River, and Kenawha Company, are in immediate want of SEVERAL HUNDRED good laborers. Gentlemen wishing to send negroes from the country, are assured that the very best care shall be taken of them.
RICHARD REINS, _Agent of the James River, and Kenawha Co_.”
From the “Vicksburg (Mis.) Register,” Dec. 27, 1838.
“60 NEGROES, males and females, _for hire for the year_ 1839. Apply to H. HENDREN.”
From the “Georgia Messenger,” Dec. 27, 1838. “NEGROES To HIRE. On the first Tuesday next, Including CARPENTERS, BLACKSMITHS, SHOEMAKERS, SEAMSTRESSES, COOKS, &c. &c. For information; Apply to OSSIAN GREGORY.”
From the “Alexandria (D.C.) Gazette,” Dec. 30, 1837.
“THE subscriber wishes to _employ_ by the month or year, ONE HUNDRED ABLE BODIED MEN, AND THIRTY BOYS. Persons having servants, will do well to give him a call. PHILIP ROACH, near Alexandria.”
From the “Columbia (S.C.) Telescope,” May 19, 1838.
“WANTED TO HIRE, twelve or fifteen NEGRO GIRLS, from ten to fourteen years of age. They are wanted for the term of two or three years.
E.H. & J. FISHER.”
“NEGROES WANTED. The Subscriber is desirous of hiring 50 of 60 _first rate Negro Men_. WILSON NESBITT.”
From the “Norfolk (Va.) Beacon,” March 21, 1838.
“LABORERS WANTED. One hundred able bodied men are wanted. The hands will be required to be delivered in Halifax by the _owners_. Apply to SHIELD & WALKE.”
From the “Lynchburg Virginian,” Dec. 13, 1838.
“40 NEGRO MEN. The subscribers wish to hire for the next year 40 NEGRO MEN. LANGHORNE, SCRUGGS & COOK.”
“HIRING of NEGROES. On Saturday, the 29th day of December, 1838, at Mrs. Tayloe’s tavern, in Amherst county, there will be _hired_ thirty or forty valuable Negroes.
In addition to the above, I have for _hire_, 20 men, women, boys, and girls–several of them excellent house servants. MAURICE H. GARLAND.”
From the “Savannah Georgian,” Feb. 5, 1838.
“WANTED TO HIRE, ONE HUNDRED prime negroes, by the year. J.V. REDDEN.”
From the “North Carolina Standard,” Feb. 31, 1838.
“NEGROES WANTED.–W. & A. STITH, will give twelve dollars per month for FIFTY strong Negro fellows, to commence work immediately; and for FIFTY more on the first day of February, and for FIFTY on the first day of March.”
From the “Lexington (Ky.) Reporter,” Dec. 26, 1838.
“WILL BE HIRED, for one year; on the first day of January, 1839, on the farm of the late Mrs. Meredith, a number of valuable NEGROES. R.S. TODD, Sheriff of Fayette Co. And Curator for James and Elizabeth Breckenridge.”
“NEGROES TO HIRE. On Wednesday, the 26th inst. I will hire to the highest bidder, the NEGROES belonging to Charles and Robert Innes. GEO. W. WILLIAMS. _Guardian_.”
The following _nine_ advertisements were published in one column of the “Winchester Virginian,” Dec. 20, 1838.
“NEGRO HIRINGS.
“WILL be offered for hire, at Captain Long’s Hotel, a number of SLAVES–men, women, boys and girls–belonging to the orphans of George Ash, deceased. RICHARD W. BARTON.” _Guardian_.
“WILL be offered for hire, at my Hotel, a number of SLAVES, consisting of men, women, boys and girls. JOSEPH LONG. _Exr. of Edmund Shackleford, dec’d_.”
“WILL be offered for hire, for the ensuing year, at Capt. Long’s Hotel, a number of SLAVES. MOSES R. RICHARDS.”
“WILL be offered for hire, the slaves belonging to the estate of James Bowen, deceased, consisting of men, and women, boys and girls. GILES COOK. _One of the Exrs. of James Bowen dec’d_.”
“THE _hiring_ at Millwood will take place on Friday, the 28th day of December, 1838. BURWELL.”
“N.B. We are desired to say that other valuable NEGROES will also be _hired_ at Millwood on the same day, besides those offered by Mr. B.”
“The SLAVES of the late John Jolliffe, about twenty in number, and of all ages and both sexes, will be offered for hire at Cain’s Depot. DAVID W. BARTON. _Administrator_.”
“I WILL hire at public hiring before the tavern door of Dr. Lacy, about 30 NEGROES, consisting of men, and women. JAMES R. RICHARDS.”
“WILL be hired, at Carter’s Tavern, on 31st of December, a number of NEGROES. JOHN J.H. GUNNELL.”
“NEGROES FOR HIRE, (PRIVATELY.) About twelve servants, consisting of men, women, boys, and girls, for hire privately. Apply to the subscriber at Col. Smith’s in Battletown. JOHN W. OWEN.”
A volume might easily be filled with advertisements like the preceding, showing conclusively that _hired_ slaves must be a large proportion of the whole number. The actual proportion has been variously estimated, at 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/2, &c. if we adopt the last as our basis, it will make the number of hired slaves, in the United States, FIVE HUNDRED AND FORTY THOUSAND!
6th. _Slaves under overseers whose wages are a part of the crop_.–That this is a common usage; appears from the following testimony. The late Hon. John Taylor, of Caroline Co. Virginia, one of the largest slaveholders in the state, President of the State Agricultural Society, and three times elected to the Senate of the United States, says, in his “Agricultural Essays,” No. 15. P. 57,
“This necessary class of men, (overseers,) are bribed by agriculturalists, not to improve, but to impoverish their land, _by a share of the crop for one year_…. The _greatest_ annual crop, and not the most judicious culture, advances his interest, and establishes his character; and the fees of these land-doctors, are much higher for killing than for curing…. The most which the land can yield, and seldom or never improvement with a view to future profit, is a point of common consent, and mutual need between the agriculturist and his overseer…. Must the practice of hiring a man for one year, by a share of the crop, to lay out all his skill and industry in killing land, and as little as possible in improving it, be kept up to commemorate the pious leaning of man to his primitive state of ignorance and barbarity? _Unless this is abolished_, the attempt to fertilize our lands is needless.”
Philemon Bliss, Esq, of Elyria, Ohio, who lived in Florida, in 1834-5, says,
“It is common for owners of plantations and slaves, to hire overseers to take charge of them, while they themselves reside at a distance. _Their wages depend principally upon the amount of labor which they can exact from the slave_. The term “good overseer,” signifies one who can make the greatest amount of the staple, cotton for instance, from a given number of hands, besides raising sufficient provisions for their consumption. He has no interest in the life of the slave. Hence the fact, so notorious at the south, that negroes are driven harder and fare worse under overseers than under their owners.”
William Ladd, Esq. of Minot, Maine, formerly a slaveholder in Florida, speaking, in a recent letter of the system of labor adopted there, says; “The compensation of the overseers _was a certain portion of the crop_.”
Rev. Phineas Smith, of Centreville, Allegany Co. N.Y. who has recently returned from a four years’ residence, in the Southern slave states and Texas, says,
“The mode in which _many_ plantations are managed, is calculated and _designed_, as an inducement to the slave driver, to lay upon the slave the _greatest possible burden, the overseer being entitled by contract, to a certain share of the crop_.”
We leave the reader to form his own opinion, as to the proportion of slaves under overseers, whose wages are in proportion to the crop, raised by them. We have little doubt that we shall escape the charge of wishing to make out a “strong case” when we put the proportion at _one-eighth_ of the whole number of slaves, which would be _three hundred and fifty thousand_.
Without drawing out upon the page a sum in addition for the reader to “run up,” it is easily seen that the slaves in the preceding classes amount to more than ELEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND, exclusive of the deaf and dumb, and the blind, some of whom, especially the former, might be profitable to their “owners”;
Now it is plainly for the interest of the “owners” of these slaves, or of those who have the charge of them, to _treat than cruelly_, to overwork, under-feed, half-clothe, half-shelter, poison, or kill outright, the aged, the broken down, the incurably diseased, idiots, feeble infants, most of the blind, some deaf and dumb, &c. It is besides a part of the slave-holder’s creed, that it is _for his interest_ to treat with terrible severity, all runaways and the incorrigibly stubborn, thievish, lazy, &c.; also for those who hire slaves, to overwork them; also for overseers to overwork the slaves under them, when their own wages are increased by it.
We have thus shown that it would be “_for the interest_,” of masters and overseers to treat with _habitual_ cruelty _more than one million_ of the slaves in the United States. But this is not all; as we have said already, it is for the interest of overseers generally, whether their wages are proportioned to the crop or not, to overwork the slaves; we need not repeat the reasons.
Neither is it necessary to re-state the arguments, going to show that it is for the interest of slaveholders, who cultivate the great southern staples, especially cotton, and the sugarcane, to overwork periodically _all_ their slaves, and _habitually_ the majority of them, when the demand for those staples creates high prices, as has been the case with cotton for many years, with little exception. Instead of entering into a labored estimate to get at the proportion of the slaves, affected by the operation of these and the other causes enumerated, we may say, that they operate _directly_ on the “field hands,” employed in raising the southern staples, and indirectly upon all classes of the slaves.
Finally, the conclude this head by turning the objector’s negative proposition into an affirmative one, and state formally what has been already proved.
_It is for the interest of shareholders, upon their own principles, and by their own showing, TO TREAT CRUELLY the great body of their slaves._
Objection VI.–THE FACT THAT THE SLAVES MULTIPLY SO RAPIDLY PROVES THAT THEY ARE NOT INHUMANELY TREATED, BUT ARE IN A COMFORTABLE CONDITION
To this we reply in brief, 1st. It has been already shown under a previous head, that, in considerable sections of the slave states, especially in the South West, the births among slaves are fewer than the deaths, which would exhibit a fearful decrease of the slave population in those sections, if the deficiency were not made up by the slave trade from the upper country.
2d. The fact that all children born of slave _mothers_, whether their fathers are whites or free colored persons, are included in the census with the slaves, and further that all children born of white mothers, whose fathers are mulattos or blacks, are also included in the census with colored persons and almost invariably with _slaves_, shows that it is impossible to ascertain with any accuracy, _what is the actual increase of the slaves alone._
3d. The fact that thousands of slaves, generally in the prime of life, are annually smuggled into the United States from Africa, Cuba, and elsewhere, makes it manifest that all inferences drawn from the increase of the slave population, which do not make large deductions, for constant importations, must be fallacious. Mr. Middleton of South Carolina, in a speech in Congress in 1819, declared that “THIRTEEN THOUSAND AFRICANS ARE ANNUALLY SMUGGLED INTO THE SOUTHERN STATES.” Mr. Mercer of Virginia, in a speech in Congress about the same time declared that “_Cargoes_,” of African slaves were smuggled into the South to a deplorable extent.
Mr. Wright, of Maryland, in a speech in Congress, estimated the number annually at FIFTEEN THOUSAND. Miss Martineau, in her recent work, (Society in America,) informs us that a large slaveholder in Louisiana, assured her in 1835, that the annual importation of native Africans was from thirteen to fifteen thousand.
The President of the United States, in his message to Congress, December, 1837, says, “The large force under Commodore Dallas, (on the West India station,) has been most actively and efficiently employed in protecting our commerce, IN PREVENTING THE IMPORTATION OF SLAVES,” &c. &c.
The New Orleans Courier of 15th February, 1839, has these remarks:
“It is believed that African negroes have been _repeatedly_ introduced into the United States. The number and the proximity of the Florida ports to the island of Cuba, make it no difficult matter; nor is our extended frontier on the Sabine and Red rivers, at all unfavorable to the smuggler. Human laws have, in all countries and ages, been violated whenever the inducements to do so afforded hopes of great profit.
“The United States’ law against the importation of Africans, _could it be strictly enforced_, might in a few years give the sugar and cotton planters of Texas advantage over those of this state; as it would, we apprehend, enable the former, under a stable government, to furnish cotton and sugar at a lower price than we can do. When giving publicity to such reflections as the subject seems to suggest, we protest against being considered advocates for any violation of the laws of our country. Every good citizen must respect those laws, notwithstanding we may deem them likely to be evaded by men less scrupulous.”
That both the south and north swarm with men ‘less scrupulous,’ every one knows.
The Norfolk (Va.) Beacon, of June 8, 1837, has the following:
“_Slave Trade.–Eight African negroes_ have been taken into custody, at Apalachicola, by the U.S. Deputy Marshal, alleged to have been imported from Cuba, on board the schooner Emperor, Captain Cox. Indictments for piracy, under the acts for the suppression of the slave trade, have been found against Captain Cox, and other parties implicated. The negroes were bought in Cuba by a Frenchman named Malherbe, formerly a resident of Tallahassee, who was drowned soon after the arrival of the schooner.”
The following testimony of Rev. Horace Moulton, now a minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in Marlborough, Mass., who resided some years in Georgia, reveals some of the secrets of the slave-smugglers, and the connivance of the Georgia authorities at their doings. It is contained in a letter dated February 24, 1839.
“The foreign slave-trade was carried on to some considerable extent when I was at the south, notwithstanding a law had been made some ten years previous to this, making this traffic piracy on the high seas. I was somewhat acquainted with the secrets of this traffic, and, I suppose, I might have engaged in it, had I so desired. Were you to visit all the plantations in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi, I think you would be convinced that the horrors of the traffic in human flesh have not yet ceased. I was _surprised to find so many that could not speak English among the slaves,_ until the mystery was explained. This was done, when I learned that slave-cargoes were landed on the coast of Florida, not a thousand miles from St. Augustine. They could, and can still, in my opinion, be landed as safely on this coast as in any port of this continent. You can imagine for yourself how easy it was to carry on the traffic between this place and the West Indies. When landed on the coast of Florida, it is an easy matter to distribute them throughout the more southern states. The law which makes it piracy to traffic in the foreign slave trade is a dead letter; and I doubt not it has been so in the more southern states ever since it was enacted. For you can perceive at once, that interested men, who believe the colored man is so much better off here than he possibly can be in Africa, will not hesitate to kidnap the blacks whenever an opportunity presents itself. I will notice one fact that came under my own observation, which will convince you that the horrors of the foreign slave-trade have not yet ceased among our southern gentry. It is as follows. A slave ship, which I have reason to believe was employed by southern men, came near the port of Savannah with about FIVE HUNDRED SLAVES, from Guinea and Congo. It was said that the ship was driven there by contrary winds; and the crew, pretending to be short of provisions, run the ship into a by place, near the shore, between Tybee Light and Darien, to recruit their stores. Well, as Providence would have it, the revenue cutter, at that time taking a trip along the coast, fell in with this slave ship, took her as a prize, and brought her up into the port of Savannah. The cargo of human chattels was unloaded, and the captives were placed in an old barracks, in the fort of Savannah, under the protection of the city authorities, they pretending that they should return them all to their native country again, as soon as a convenient opportunity presented itself. The ship’s crew of course were arrested, and confined in jail. Now for the sequel of this history. About one third part of the negroes died in a few weeks after they were landed, in seasoning, so called, or in becoming acclimated–or, as I should think, a distemper broke out among them, and they died like the Israelites when smitten with the plague. Those who did not die in seasoning, must be hired out a little while, to be sure, as the city authorities could not afford to keep them on expense doing nothing. As it happened, the man in whose employ I was when the cargo of human beings arrived, hired some twenty or thirty of them, and put them under my care. They continued with me until the sickly season drove me off to the north. I soon returned, but could not hear a word about the crew of pirates. They had something like a mock trial, as I should think, for no one, as I ever learned, was condemned, fined, or censured. But where were the poor captives, who were going to be returned to Africa by the city authorities, as soon as they could make it convenient? Oh, forsooth, those of whom I spoke, being under my care, were tugging away for the same man; the remainder were scattered about among different planters. When I returned to the north again, the next year, the city authorities had not, down to that time; made it convenient to return these poor victims. The fact is, they belonged there; and, in my opinion, they were designed to be landed near by the place where the revenue cutter seized them. Probably those very planters for whom they were originally designed received them; and still there was a pretence kept up that they would be returned to Africa. This must have been done, that the consciences of those might be quieted, who were looking for justice to be administered to these poor captives. It is easy for a company of slaveholders, who desire to traffic in human flesh, to fit out a vessel, under Spanish colors, and then go prowling about the African coast for the victims of their lusts. If all the facts with relation to the African slave-trade, now secretly carried on at the south, could be disclosed, the people of the free states would be filled with amazement.”
It is plain, from the nature of this trade, and the circumstances under which it is carried on, that the number of slaves imported would be likely to be estimated far _below_ the truth. There can be little doubt that the estimate of Mr. Wright, of Maryland, (fifteen thousand annually,) is some thousands too small. But even according to his estimate, the African slave-trade adds ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND SLAVES TO EACH UNITED STATES’ CENSUS. These are in the prime of life, and their children would swell the slave population many thousands annually–thus making a great addition to each census.
4. It is a notorious fact, that large numbers of free colored persons are kidnapped every year in the free states, taken to the south, and sold as slaves.
Hon. GEORGE M. STROUD, Judge of the Criminal Court of Philadelphia, in his sketch of the slave laws, speaking of the kidnapping of free colored persons in the northern states, says–
“Remote as is the city of Philadelphia from those slaveholding states in which the introduction of slaves from places within the territory of the United States is freely permitted, and where also the market is tempting, _it has been ascertained,_ that MORE THAN THIRTY FREE COLORED PERSONS, MOSTLY CHILDREN, HAVE BEEN KIDNAPPED HERE, AND CARRIED AWAY, WITHIN THE LAST TWO YEARS. Five of these, through the kind interposition of several humane gentlemen, have been restored to their friends, though not without _great expense and difficulty_; the others _are still retained in bondage_, and if rescued at all, it must be by sending white witnesses a journey of more than a thousand miles. The costs attendant upon lawsuits, under such circumstances, will probably fall but little short of the estimated value, as slaves, of the individuals kidnapped.”
The following is an extract from Mrs. CHILD’s Appeal, pp. 64-6.
“I know the names of four colored citizens of Massachusetts, who went to Georgia on board a vessel, were seized under the laws of that state, and sold as slaves. They have sent the most earnest exhortations to their families and friends, to do something for their relief; but the attendant expenses require more money than the friends of negroes are apt to have, and the poor fellows, as yet, remain unassisted.
“A New York paper, of November, 1829, contains the following caution.
_”Beware of Kidnappers!_–It is well understood, that there is at present in this city, a gang of kidnappers, busily engaged in their vocation, of stealing colored children for the southern market. It is believed that three or four have been stolen within as many days. There are suspicions of a foul nature connected with some who serve the police in subordinate capacities. It is hinted that there may be those in some authority, not altogether ignorant of these diabolical practices. Let the public be on their guard! It is still fresh in the memories of all, that a cargo, or rather drove of negroes, was made up from this city and Philadelphia, about the time that the emancipation of all the negroes in this state took place, under our present constitution, and were taken through Virginia, the Carolinas, and Tennessee, and disposed of in the state of Mississippi. Some of those who were taken from Philadelphia were persons of intelligence; and after they had been driven through the country in chains, and disposed of by sale on the Mississippi, wrote back to their friends, and were rescued from bondage. The persons who were guilty of this abominable transaction are known, and now reside in North Carolina. They may very probably be engaged in similar enterprizes at the present time–at least there is reason to believe, that the system of kidnapping free persons of color from the northern cities, has been carried on more extensively than the public arc generally aware of.”
GEORGE BRADBURN, Esq. of Nantucket, Mass. a member of the Legislature of that state, at its last session, made a report to that body, March 6, 1839, ‘On the deliverance of citizens liable to be sold as slaves.’ That report contains the following facts and testimony.
“The following facts are a few out of a VAST MULTITUDE, to which the attention of the undersigned has been directed.
“On the 27th of February last, the undersigned had an interview with the Rev. Samuel Snowden, a respectable and intelligent clergyman of the city of Boston. This gentleman stated, and he is now ready to make oath, that during the last six years, he has himself, by the aid of various benevolent individuals, procured the deliverance from jail of six citizens of Massachusetts, who had been, arrested and imprisoned as runaway slaves, and who, but for his timely interposition, would have been sold into perpetual bondage. The names and the places of imprisonment of those persons, as stated by Mr. S. were as follows:
“James Hight, imprisoned at Mobile; William Adams, at Norfolk; William Holmes, also at Norfolk; James Oxford, at Wilmington; James Smith, at Baton Rouge; John Tidd, at New Orleans.
“In 1836, Mary Smith, a native of this state, returning from New Orleans, whither she had been in the capacity of a servant, was cast upon the shores of North Carolina. She was there seized and sold as a slave. Information of the fact reached her friends at Boston. Those friends made an effort to obtain her liberation. They invoked the assistance of the Governor of this Commonwealth. A correspondence ensued between His Excellency and the Governor of North Carolina: copies of which were offered for the inspection of your committee. Soon afterwards, by permission of the authorities of North Carolina, ‘Mary Smith’ returned to Boston. But it turned out, that this was not _the_ Mary Smith, whom our worthy Governor, and other excellent individuals of Boston, had taken so unwearied pains to redeem from slavery. It was another woman, of the same name, who was also a native of Massachusetts, and had been seized in North Carolina as a runaway slave. The Mary Smith has not yet been heard of. If alive, she is now, in all probability, wearing the chains of slavery.
“About a year and a half since, several citizens of different free states were rescued from slavery, at New Orleans, by the direct personal efforts of an acquaintance of the undersigned. The benevolent individual alluded to is Jacob Barker, Esq. a name not unknown to the commercial world. Mr. Barker is a resident of New Orleans. A statement of the cases in reference is contained in a letter addressed by him to the Hon. Samuel H. Jenks, of Nantucket.”
The letter of Mr. Barker, referred to in this report to the Legislature of Massachusetts, bears date August 19, 1837. The following are extracts from it.
“A free man, belonging to Baltimore, by the name of Ephraim Larkin, who came here cook of the William Tell, was arrested and thrown into prison a few weeks since, and sent in chains to work on the road. I heard of it, and with difficulty found him; and after the most diligent and active exertions, got him released–in effecting which, I traveled in the heat of the day, thermometer ranging in the shade from 94 to 100, more than twenty times to and from prison, the place of his labor, and the different courts, a distance of near three miles from my residence; and after I had established his freedom, had to pay for his arrest, maintenance, and the advertising him as a runaway slave, $29.89, as per copy of bill herewith–the allowance for work not equalling the expenses, the amount augments with every day of confinement.
“In pursuing the cook of the William Tell, I found three other free men, confined in the same prison; one belonged also to Baltimore, by the name of Leaven Dogerty: he was also released, on my paying $28 expenses; one was a descendant of the Indians who once inhabited Nantucket–his name is Eral Lonnon. Lonnon had been six weeks in prison; he was released without difficulty, on my paying $20.38 expenses–and no one seemed to know why he had been confined or arrested, as the law does not presume persons of mixed blood to be slaves. But for the others, I had great difficulty in procuring what was considered competent witnesses to prove them free. No complaint of improper conduct had been made against either of them. At one time, the Recorder said the witness must be white; at another, that one respectable witness was insufficient; at another, that a person who had been (improperly) confined and released, was not a competent witness, &c. &c. Lonnon has been employed in the South Sea fishery from Nantucket and New Bedford, nearly all his life; has sailed on those voyages in the ships Eagle, Maryland, Gideon, Triton, and Samuel. He was born at Marshpee, Plymouth (Barnstable) county, Mass. and prefers to encounter the leviathan of the deep, rather than the turnkeys of New Orleans.
“The other was born in St. Johns, Nova Scotia, and bears the name of William Smith, a seaman by profession.
“Immediately after these men were released, two others were arrested. They attempted to escape, and being pursued, ran for the river, in the vain hope of being able to swim across the Mississippi, a distance of a mile, with a current of four knots. One soon gave out, and made for a boat which had been despatched for their recovery, and was saved; the other being a better swimmer, continued on until much exhausted, then also made for the boat–it was too late; he sank before the boat could reach him, and was drowned. They claimed to be freemen.
“On Sunday last I was called to the prison of the Municipality in which I reside, to serve on an inquest on the body of a drowned man. There I saw one other free man confined, by the name of Henry Tier, a yellow man, born in New York, and formerly in my employ. He had been confined as a supposed runaway, near six months, without a particle of testimony; although from his color, the laws of Louisiana presume him to be free. I applied immediately for his release, which was promptly granted. At first, expenses similar to those exacted in the third Municipality were required; but on my demonstrating to the recorder that the law imposed no such burden on free men, he was released without any charge whatever. How free men can obtain satisfaction for having been thus wrongfully imprisoned, and made to work in chains on the highway, is not for me to decide. I apprehend no satisfaction can be had without more active friends, willing to espouse their cause, than can be found in this quarter. Therefore I repeat, that no person of color should come here without a certificate of freedom from the governor of the state to which he belongs.
“Very respectfully, your assured friend, Jacob Barker.”
“N.B.–Since writing the preceding, I have procured the release of another free man from the prison of the third Municipality, on the payment of $39.65, as per bill, copy herewith. His name is William Lockman–he was born in New Jersey, of free parents, and resides at Philadelphia. A greater sum was required which was reduced by the allowance of his maintenance (written _labor_,) while at work on the road, which the law requires the Municipality to pay; but it had not before been so expounded in the third Municipality. I hope to get it back in the case of the other three. The allowance for labor, in addition to their maintenance, is twenty-five cents per day; but they require those illiterate men to advance the whole before they can leave the prison, and then to take a certificate for their labor, and go for it to another department–to collect which, is ten times more trouble than the money when received is worth. While these free men, without having committed any fault, were compelled to work in chains, on the roads, in the burning sun, for 25 cents per day, and pay in advance 18 3-4 cents per day for maintenance, doctor’s, and other bills, and not able to work half their time, I paid others, working on ship-board, in sight, two dollars per day. J.B.”
The preceding letter of Mr. Barker, furnishes grounds for the belief, that _hundreds_, if not _thousands_ of free colored persons, from the different states of this Union, both slave and free from the West Indies, South America, Mexico, and the British possessions in North America, and from other parts of the world, are reduced to slavery _every year_ in our slave states. If a single individual, in the course of a few days, _accidentally_ discovered _six_ colored free men, working in irons, and soon to be sold as slaves, in a _single_ southern city, is it not fair to infer, that in all the slave states, there must be _multitudes_ of such persons, now in slavery, and that this number is rapidly increasing, by ceaseless accessions?
The letter of Mr. Barker is valuable, also, as a graphic delineation of the ‘public opinion’ of the south. The great difficulty with which the release of these free men was procured, notwithstanding the personal efforts of Mr. Jacob Barker, who is a gentleman of influence, and has, we believe, been an alderman of New Orleans, reveals a ‘public opinion,’ insensible as adamant to the liberty of colored men.
It would be easy to fill scores of pages with details similar to the preceding. We have furnished enough, however, to show, that, in all probability, _each_ United States’ census of the _slave_ population, is increased by the addition to it of _thousands_ of free colored persons, kidnapped and sold as slaves.
5th. To argue that the rapid multiplication of any class in the community, is proof that such a class is well-clothed, well-housed, abundantly fed, and very _comfortable_, is as absurd as to argue that those who have _few children_, must of course, be ill-clothed, ill-housed, badly lodged, overworked, ill-fed, &c. &c. True, privations and inflictions may be carried to such an extent as to occasion a fearful diminishment of population. That was the case generally with the slave population in the West Indies, and, as has been shown, is true of certain portions of the southern states. But the fact that such an effect is _not_ produced, does not prove that the slaves do not experience great privations and severe inflictions. They may suffer much hardship, and great cruelties, without experiencing so great a derangement of the vital functions as to prevent child-bearing. The Israelites multiplied with astonishing rapidity, under the task-masters and burdens of Egypt. Does this falsify the declarations of Scripture, that ‘they sighed by reason of their bondage,’ and that the Egyptians ‘made them serve _with rigor_,’ and made ‘their lives bitter with _hard bondage_.’ ‘I have seen,’ said God, ‘their _afflictions_. I have beard their _groanings_,’ &c. The history of the human race shows, that great _privations and much suffering_ may be experienced, without materially checking the rapid increase of population.
Besides, if we should give to the objection all it claims, it would merely prove, that the female slaves, or rather a portion of them, are in a comfortable condition; and that, so far as the absolute necessities of life are concerned, the females of _child-bearing_ age, in Delaware, Maryland, northern, western, and middle Virginia, the upper parts of Kentucky and Missouri, and among the mountains of east Tennessee and western North Carolina, are in general tolerably well supplied. The same remark, with some qualifications, may be made of the slaves generally, in those parts of the country where the people are slaveholders, mainly, that they may enjoy the privilege and profit of being _slave-breeders_.
OBJECTION VIII.–‘PUBLIC OPINION IS A PROTECTION TO THE SLAVE.’
ANSWER. It was public opinion that _made him a slave_. In a republican government the people make the laws, and those laws are merely public opinion _in legal forms_. We repeat it,–public opinion made them slaves, and keeps them slaves; in other words, it sunk them from men to chattels, and now, forsooth, this same public opinion will see to it, that these _chattels_ are treated like _men!_
By looking a little into this matter, and finding out how this ‘public opinion’ (law) protects the slaves in some particulars, we can judge of the amount of its protection in others. 1. It protects the slaves from _robbery_, by declaring that those who robbed their mothers may rob them and their children. “All negroes, mulattoes, or mestizoes who now are, or shall hereafter be in this province, and all their offspring, are hereby declared to be, and shall remain, forever, hereafter, absolute slaves, and shall follow the condition of the mother.”–Law of South Carolina, 2 Brevard’s Digest, 229. Others of the slave states have similar laws.
2. It protects their _persons_, by giving their master a right to flog, wound, and beat them when he pleases. See Devereaux’s North Carolina Reports, 263.–Case of the State vs. Mann, 1829; in which the Supreme Court decided, that a master who _shot_ at a female slave and wounded her, because she got loose from him when he was flogging her, and started to run from him, had violated _no law_, AND COULD NOT BE INDICTED. It has been decided by the highest courts of the slave states generally, that assault and battery upon a slave is not indictable as a criminal offence.
The following decision on this point was made by the Supreme Court of South Carolina in the case of the State vs. Cheetwood, 2 Hill’s Reports, 459.
_Protection of slaves_.–“The criminal offence of assault and battery _cannot, at common law, be committed on the person of a slave_. For, notwithstanding for some purposes a slave is regarded in law as a person, yet generally he is a mere chattel personal, and his right of personal protection belongs to his master, who can maintain an action of trespass for the battery of his slave.
“There can be therefore no offence against the state for a mere beating of a slave, unaccompanied by any circumstances of cruelty, or an attempt to kill and murder. The peace of the state is not thereby broken; for a slave is not generally regarded as legally capable of being within the peace of the state. He is not a citizen, and _is not in that character entitled to her protection_.”
This ‘public opinion’ protects the _persons_ of the slaves by depriving them of Jury trial;[28] their _consciences_, by forbidding them to assemble for worship, unless their oppressors are present;[29] their _characters_, by branding them as liars, in denying them their oath in law;[30] their _modesty_, by leaving their master to clothe, or let them go naked, as he pleases;[31] and their _health_, by leaving him to feed or starve them, to work them, wet or dry, with or without sleep, to lodge them, with or without covering, as the whim takes him;[32] and their _liberty_, marriage relations, parental authority, and filial obligations, by _annihilating_ the whole.[33] This is the protection which ‘PUBLIC OPINION,’ in the form of _law_, affords to the slaves; this is the chivalrous knight, always in stirrups, with lance in rest, to champion the cause of the slaves.
[Footnote 28: Law of South Carolina. James’ Digest, 392-3. Law of Louisiana. Martin’s Digest, 42. Law of Virginia. Rev. Code, 429.]
[Footnote 29: Miss. Rev. Code, 390. Similar laws exist in the slave states generally.]
[Footnote 30: “A slave cannot be a witness against a white person, either in a civil or criminal cause.” Stroud’s Sketch of the Laws of Slavery, 65.]
[Footnote 31: Stroud’s Sketch of the Slave Laws, 132.]
[Footnote 32: Stroud’s Sketch, 26-32.]
[Footnote 33: Stroud’s Sketch, 22-24.]
Public opinion, protection to the slave! Brazen effrontery, hypocrisy, and falsehood! We have, in the laws cited and referred to above, the formal testimony of the Legislatures of the slave states, that, ‘public opinion’ does pertinaciously _refuse_ to protect the slaves; not only so, but that it does itself persecute and plunder them all: that it originally planned, and now presides over, sanctions, executes and perpetuates the whole system of robbery, torture, and outrage under which they groan.
In all the slave states, this ‘public opinion’ has taken away from the slave his _liberty_; it has robbed him of his right to his own body, of his right to improve his mind, of his right to read the Bible, of his right to worship God according to his conscience, of his right to receive and enjoy what he earns, of his right to live with his wife and children, of his right to better his condition, of his right to eat when he is hungry, to rest when he is tired, to sleep when be needs it, and to cover his nakedness with clothing: this ‘public opinion’ makes the slave a prisoner for life on the plantation, except when his jailor pleases to let him out with a ‘pass,’ or sells him, and transfers him in irons to another jail-yard: this ‘public opinion’ traverses the country, buying up men, women, children–chaining them in coffles, and driving them forever from their nearest friends; it sets them on the auction table, to be handled, scrutinized, knocked off to the highest bidder; it proclaims that they shall not have their liberty; and, if their masters give it them, ‘public opinion’ seizes and throws them back into slavery. This same ‘public opinion’ has formally attached the following legal penalties to the following acts of slaves.
If more than seven slaves are found together in any road, without a white person, _twenty lashes a piece_; for visiting a plantation without a written pass, ten lashes; for letting loose a boat from where it is made fast, _thirty-nine lashes for the first offence_; and for the second, ‘_shall have cut off from his head one ear_;’ for keeping or carrying a _club, thirty-nine lashes_; for having any article for sale, without a ticket from his master, _ten lashes_; for traveling in any other than ‘the most usual and accustomed road,’ when going alone to any place, _forty lashes_; for traveling in the night, without a pass, _forty lashes_; for being found in another person’s negro-quarters, _forty lashes_; for hunting with dogs in the woods, _thirty lashes_; for being on _horseback_ without the written permission of his master, _twenty-five lashes_; for riding or going abroad in the night, or riding horses in the day time, without leave, a slave may be whipped, _cropped_, or _branded in the cheek_ with the letter R, or otherwise punished, _not extending to life_, or so as to render him _unfit for labor_. The laws referred to may be found by consulting 2 Brevard’s Digest, 228, 213, 216; Haywood’s Manual, 78, chap. 13, pp. 518, 529; 1 Virginia Revised Code, 722-3; Prince’s Digest, 454; 2 Missouri Laws, 741; Mississippi Revised Code, 571. Laws similar to these exist throughout the southern slave code. Extracts enough to fill a volume might be made from these laws, showing that the protection which ‘public opinion’ grants to the slaves, is hunger, nakedness, terror, bereavements, robbery, imprisonment, the stocks, iron collars, hunting and worrying them with dogs and guns, mutilating their bodies, and murdering them.
A few specimens of the laws and the judicial decisions on them, will show what is the state of ‘public opinion’ among slaveholders towards their slaves. Let the following suffice.–‘Any person may lawfully kill a slave, who has been outlawed for running away and lurking in swamps, &c.’–Law of North Carolina; Judge Stroud’s Sketch of the Slave Laws, 103; Haywood’s Manual, 524. ‘A slave _endeavoring_ to entice another slave to runaway, if provisions, &c. be prepared for the purpose of aiding in such running away, shall be punished with DEATH. And a slave who shall aid the slave so endeavoring to entice another slave to run away, shall also suffer DEATH.’–Law of South Carolina; Stroud’s Sketch of Slave Laws, 103-4; 2 Brevard’s Digest, 233, 244. Another law of South Carolina provides that if a slave shall, when absent from the plantation, refuse to be examined by ‘_any white_ person,’ (no matter how crazy or drunk,) ‘such white person may seize and chastise him; and if the slave shall _strike_ such white person, such slave may be lawfully killed.’–2 Brevard’s Digest, 231.
The following is a law of Georgia.–‘If any slave shall presume to strike any white person, such slave shall, upon trial and conviction before the justice or justices, suffer such punishment for the first offence as they shall think fit, not extending to life or limb; and for the second offence, DEATH.’–Prince’s Digest, 450. The same law exists in South Carolina, with this difference, that death is made the punishment for the _third_ offence. In both states, the law contains this remarkable proviso: ‘Provided always, that such striking be not done by the command and in the defence of the person or property of the owner, or other person having the government of such slave, in which case the slave shall be wholly excused!’ According to this law, if a slave, by the direction of his OVERSEER, strike a white man who is beating said overseer’s _dog_, ‘the slave shall be wholly excused;’ but if the white man has rushed upon the slave himself, instead of the _dog_, and is furiously beating him, if the slave strike back but a single blow, the legal penalty is ‘ANY _punishment_ not extending to life or limb;’ and if the tortured slave has a second onset made upon him, and, after suffering all but death, again strike back in self-defence, the law KILLS him for it. So, if a female slave, in obedience to her mistress, and in defence of ‘her property,’ strike a white man who is kicking her mistress’ pet kitten, she ‘shall be wholly excused,’ saith the considerate law: but if the unprotected girl, when beaten and kicked _herself_, raise her hand against her brutal assailant, the law condemns her to ‘any punishment, not extending to life or limb; and if a wretch assail her again, and attempt to violate her chastity, and the trembling girl, in her anguish and terror, instinctively raise her hand against him in self-defence, she shall, saith the law, ‘suffer DEATH.’
Reader, this diabolical law is the ‘public opinion’ of Georgia and South Carolina toward the slaves. This is the vaunted ‘protection’ afforded them by their ‘high-souled chivalry.’ To show that the ‘public opinion’ of the slave states far more effectually protects the _property_ of the master than the _person_ of the slave, the reader is referred to two laws of Louisiana, passed in 1819. The one attaches a penalty ‘not exceeding one thousand dollars,’ and ‘imprisonment not exceeding two years,’ to the crime of ‘cutting or breaking any iron chain or collar,’ which any master of slaves has used to prevent their running away; the other, a penalty ‘not exceeding five hundred dollars,’ to ‘wilfully cutting out the tongue, putting out the eye, _cruelly_ burning, or depriving any slave of _any limb_.’ Look at it–the most horrible dismemberment conceivable cannot be punished by a fine of _more_ than five hundred dollars. The law expressly fixes that, as the utmost limit, and it _may_ not be half that sum; not a single moment’s imprisonment stays the wretch in his career, and the next hour he may cut out another slave’s tongue, or burn his hand off. But let the same man break a chain put upon a slave, to keep him from running away, and, besides paying double the penalty that could be exacted from him for cutting off a slave’s leg, the law imprisons him not exceeding two years!
This law reveals the _heart_ of slaveholders towards their slaves, their diabolical indifference to the most excruciating and protracted torments inflicted on them by ‘_any_ person;’ it reveals, too, the _relative_ protection afforded by ‘public opinion’ to the _person_ of the slave, in appalling contrast with the vastly surer protection which it affords to the master’s _property_ in the slave. The wretch who cuts out the tongue, tears out the eyes, shoots off the arms, or burns off the feet of a slave, over a slow fire, _cannot_ legally be fined more than five hundred dollars; but if he should in pity loose a chain from his galled neck, placed there by the master to keep him from escaping, and thus put his property in some jeopardy, he may be fined _one thousand dollars_, and thrust into a dungeon for two years! and this, be it remembered, not for _stealing_ the slave from the master, nor for _enticing_, or even advising him to run away, or giving him any information how he can effect his escape; but merely, because, touched with sympathy for the bleeding victim, as he sees the rough iron chafe the torn flesh at every turn, he removes it;–and, as escape without this incumbrance would be easier than with it, the master’s property in the slave is put at some risk. For having caused this slight risk, the law provides a punishment–fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisonment not exceeding _two years_. We say ‘slight risk,’ because the slave may not be disposed to encounter the dangers, and hunger, and other sufferings of the woods, and the certainty of terrible inflictions if caught; and if he should attempt it, the risk of losing him is small. An advertisement of five lines will set the whole community howling on his track; and the trembling and famished fugitive is soon scented out in his retreat, and dragged back and delivered over to his tormentors.
The preceding law is another illustration of the ‘protection’ afforded to the limbs and members of slaves, by ‘public opinion’ among slaveholders.
Here follow two other illustrations of the brutal indifference of ‘public opinion’ to the _torments_ of the slave, while it is full of zeal to compensate the master, if any one disables his slave so as to lessen his market value. The first is a law of South Carolina. It provides, that if a slave, engaged in his owner’s service, be attacked by a person ‘not having sufficient cause for so doing,’ and if the slave shall be ‘_maimed or disabled_’ by him, so that the owner suffers a loss from his inability to labor, the person maiming him shall pay for his ‘lost time,’ and ‘also the charges for the cure of the slave!’ This Vandal law does not deign to take the least notice of the anguish of the ‘_maimed’ slave_, made, perhaps, a groaning cripple for life; the horrible wrong and injury done to _him_, is passed over in utter silence. It is thus declared to be _not a criminal act_. But the pecuniary interests of the master are not to be thus neglected by ‘public opinion’. Oh no! its tender bowels run over with sympathy at the master’s injury in the ‘lost _time_’ of his slave, and it carefully provides that he shall have pay for the whole of it.–See 2 _Brevard’s Digest_, 231, 2.
A law similar to the above has been passed in Louisiana, which contains an additional provision for the benefit of the _master_–ordaining, that ‘if the slave’ (thus _maimed and disabled_,) ‘be forever rendered unable to work,’ the person maiming, shall pay the master the appraised value of the slave before the injury, and shall, in addition, _take_ the slave, and maintain him during life.’ Thus ‘public opinion’ transfers the helpless cripple from the hand of his master, who, as he has always had the benefit of his services, might possibly feel some tenderness for him, and puts him in the sole power of the wretch who has disabled him for life–protecting the victim from the fury of his tormentor, by putting him into his hands! What but butchery by piecemeal can, under such circumstances, be expected from a man brutal enough at first to ‘maim’ and ‘disable’ him, and now exasperated by being obliged to pay his full value to the master, and to have, in addition, the daily care and expense of his maintenance. Since writing the above, we have seen the following judicial decision, in the case of Jourdan, vs. Patton–5 Martin’s Louisiana Reports, 615. A slave of the plaintiff had been deprived of his _only eye_, and thus rendered _useless_, on which account the court adjudged that the defendant should pay the plaintiff his full value. The case went up, by appeal, to the Supreme court. Judge Mathews, in his decision said, that ‘when the defendant had paid the sum decreed, the slave ought to be placed in his possession,’–adding, that ‘the judgment making full compensation to the owner _operates a change of property_. He adds, ‘The principle of humanity which would lead us to suppose, that the mistress whom he had long served, would treat her miserable blind slave with more kindness than the defendant to whom the judgment ought to transfer him, CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION!’ The full compensation of the mistress for the loss of the services of the slave, is worthy of all ‘consideration,’ even to the uttermost farthing; ‘public opinion’ is omnipotent for _her_ protection; but when the food, clothing, shelter, fire and lodging, medicine and nursing, comfort and entire condition and treatment of her poor blind slave throughout his dreary pilgrimage, is the question–ah! that, says the mouthpiece of the law, and the representative of ‘public opinion,’ ‘CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.’ Protection of slaves by ‘public opinion’ among slaveholders!!
The foregoing illustrations of southern ‘public opinion,’ from the laws made by it and embodying it, are sufficient to show, that, so far from being an efficient protection to the slaves, it is their deadliest foe, persecutor and tormentor.
But here we shall probably be met by the legal lore of some ‘Justice Shallow,’ instructing us that the life of the slave is fully protected by law, however unprotected he may be in other respects. This assertion we meet with a point blank denial. The law does not, in reality, protect the life of the slave. But even if the letter of the law would fully protect the life of the slave, ‘public opinion’ in the slave states would make it a dead letter. The letter of the law would have been all-sufficient for the protection of the lives of the miserable gamblers in Vicksburg, and other places in Mississippi, from the rage of those whose money they had won; but ‘gentlemen of property and standing ‘laughed the law to scorn, rushed to the gamblers’ house, put ropes round their necks, dragged them through the streets, hanged them in the public square, and thus saved the sum they had not yet paid. Thousands witnessed this wholesale murder, yet of the scores of legal officers present, not a soul raised a finger to prevent it, the whole city consented to it, and thus aided and abetted it. How many hundreds of them helped to commit the murders, _with their own hands_, does not appear, but not one of them has been indicted for it, and no one made the least effort to bring them to trial. Thus, up to the present hour, the blood of those murdered men rests on that whole city, and it will continue to be a CITY OF MURDERERS, so long as its citizens, agree together to shield those felons from punishment; and they do thus agree together so long as they encourage each other in refusing to bring them to justice. Now, the _laws_ of Mississippi were not in fault that those men were murdered; nor are they now in fault, that their murderers are not punished; the laws demand it, but the people of Mississippi, the legal officers, the grand juries and legislature of the state, with one consent agree, that the law _shall be a dead letter_, and thus the whole state assumes the guilt of those murders, and in bravado, flourishes her reeking hands in the face of the world.[34]
[Footnote 34: We have just learned from Mississippi papers, that the citizens of Vicksburg are erecting a public monument in honor of Dr. H.S. Bodley, who was the ring-leader of the Lynchers in their attack upon the miserable victims. To give the crime the cold encouragement of impunity alone, or such slight tokens of favor as a home and a sanctuary, is beneath the chivalry and hospitality of Mississippians; so they tender it incense, an altar, and a crown of glory. Let the marble rise till it be seen from afar, a beacon marking the spot where law lies lifeless by the hand of felons; and murderers, with chaplets on their heads, dance and shout upon its grave, while ‘all the people say, amen.’]
The letter of the law on the statute book is one thing, the practice of the community under that law often a totally different thing. Each of the slave states has laws providing that the life of no _white_ man shall be taken without his having first been indicted by a grand jury, allowed an impartial trial by a petit jury, with the right of counsel, cross-examination of witnesses, &c.; but who does not know that if ARTHUR TAPPAN were pointed out in the streets of New Orleans, Mobile, Savannah, Charleston, Natchez, or St. Louis, he would be torn in pieces by the citizens with one accord, and that if any one should attempt to bring his murderers to punishment, he would be torn in pieces also. The editors of southern newspapers openly vaunt, that every abolitionist who sets foot in their soil, shall, if he be discovered, be hung at once, without judge or jury. What mockery to quote the _letter of the law_ in those states, to show that abolitionists would have secured to them the legal protection of an impartial trial!
Before the objector can make out his case, that the life of the slave is protected by the law, he must not only show that the _words of the law_ grant him such protection, but that such a state of public sentiment exists as will carry out the provisions of the law in their true spirit. Any thing short of this will be set down as mere prating by every man of common sense. It has been already abundantly shown in the preceding pages, that the public sentiment of the slaveholding states toward the slaves is diabolical. Now, if there were laws in those states, the _words_ of which granted to the life of the slave the same protection granted to that of the master, what would they avail? ACTS constitute protection; and is that public sentiment which makes the slave ‘property,’ and perpetrates hourly robbery and batteries upon him, so penetrated with a sense of the sacredness of his right to life, that it will protect it at all hazards, and drag to the gallows his OWNER, if he take the life of his own _property_? If it be asked, why the penalty for killing a slave is not a mere _fine_ then, if his life is not really regarded as sacred by public sentiment–we answer, that formerly in most, if not in all the slave states, the murder of a slave _was_ punished by a mere fine. This was the case in South Carolina till a few years since. Yes, as late as 1821, in the state of South Carolina, which boasts of its chivalry and honor, at least as loudly as any state in the Union, a slaveholder might butcher his slave in the most deliberate manner–with the most barbarous and protracted torments, and yet not be subjected to a single hour’s imprisonment–pay his fine, stride out of the court and kill another–pay his fine again and butcher another, and so long as he paid to the state, cash down, its own assessment of damages, without putting it to the trouble of prosecuting for it, he might strut ‘a gentleman.’–See 2 _Brevard’s Digest_, 241.
The reason assigned by the legislature for enacting a law which punished the wilful murder of a human being by a _fine_, was that ‘CRUELTY _is_ HIGHLY UNBECOMING,’ and ‘ODIOUS.’ It was doubtless the same reason that induced the legislature in 1821, to make a show of giving _more_ protection to the life of the slave. Their fathers, when they gave _some_ protection, did it because the time had come when, not to do it would make them ‘ODIOUS,’ So the legislature of 1821 made a show of giving still greater protection, because, not to do it would make them ‘_odious_.’ Fitly did they wear the mantles of their ascending fathers! In giving to the life of a slave the miserable protection of a fine, their fathers did not even pretend to do it out of any regard to the sacredness of his life as a human being, but merely because cruelty is ‘unbecoming’ and ‘odious.’ The legislature of 1821 _nominally_ increased this protection; not that they cared more for the slave’s rights, or for the inviolabity of his life as a human being, but the civilized world had advanced since the date of the first law. The slave-trade which was then honorable merchandise, and plied by lords, governors, judges, and doctors of divinity, raising them to immense wealth, had grown ‘unbecoming,’ and only raised its votaries by a rope to the yard arm; besides this, the barbarity of the slave codes throughout the world was fast becoming ‘odious’ to civilized nations, and slaveholders found that the only conditions on which they could prevent themselves from being thrust out of the pale of civilization, was to meliorate the iron rigor of their slave code, and thus _seem_ to secure to their slaves some protection. Further, the northern states had passed laws for the abolition of slavery–all the South American states were acting in the matter; and Colombia and Chili passed acts of abolition that very year. In addition to all this the Missouri question had been for two years previous under discussion in Congress, in State legislatures, and in every village and stage coach; and this law of South Carolina had been held up to execration by northern members of Congress, and in newspapers throughout the free states–in a word, the legislature of South Carolina found that they were becoming ‘odious;’ and while in their sense of justice and humanity they did not surpass their fathers, they winced with equal sensitiveness under the sting of the world’s scorn, and with equal promptitude sued for a truce by modifying the law.
The legislature of South Carolina modified another law at the same session. Previously, the killing of a slave ‘on a sudden heat or passion, or by undue correction,’ was punished by a fine of three hundred and fifty pounds. In 1821 an act was passed diminishing the fine to five hundred dollars, but authorizing an imprisonment ‘not exceeding six months.’ Just before the American Revolution, the Legislature of North Carolina passed a law making _imprisonment_ the penalty for the wilful and malicious murder of a slave. About twenty years after the revolution, the state found itself becoming ‘odious,’ as the spirit of abolition was pervading the nations. The legislature, perceiving that Christendom would before long rank them with barbarians if they so cheapened human life, repealed the law, candidly assigning in the preamble of the new one the reason for repealing the old–that it was ‘DISGRACEFUL’ and ‘DEGRADING! As this preamble expressly recognizes the slave as ‘a human creature,’ and as it is couched in a phraseology which indicates some sense of justice, we would gladly give the legislature credit for sincerity, and believe them really touched with humane movings towards the slave, were it not for a proviso in the law clearly revealing that the show of humanity and regard for their rights, indicated by the words, is nothing more than a hollow pretence–hypocritical flourish to produce an impression favorable to their justice and magnanimity. After declaring that he who is ‘guilty of wilfully and maliciously killing a slave, shall suffer the same punishment as if he had killed a freeman;’ the act concludes thus: ‘Provided, always, this act shall not extend to the person killing a slave outlawed by virtue of any act of Assembly of this state; or to any slave in the act of resistance to his lawful overseer, or master, or to any slave dying under _moderate correction_.’ Reader, look at this proviso. 1. It gives free license to all persons to kill _outlawed slaves_. Well, what is an outlawed slave? A slave who runs away, lurks in swamps, &c., and kills a _hog_ or any other domestic animal to keep himself from starving, is subject to a proclamation of _outlawry_; (Haywood’s Manual, 521,) and then whoever finds him may shoot him, tear him in pieces with dogs, burn him to death over a slow fire, or kill him by any other tortures. 2. The proviso grants full license to a master to kill his slave, if the slave _resist_ him. The North Carolina Bench has decided that this law contemplates not only actual resistance to punishment, &c., but also _offering_ to resist. (Stroud’s Sketch, 37.) If, for example, a slave undergoing the process of branding should resist by pushing aside the burning stamp; or if wrought up to frenzy by the torture of the lash, he should catch and hold it fast; or if he break loose from his master and run, refusing to stop at his command; or if he _refuse_ to be flogged; or struggle to keep his clothes on while his master is trying to strip him; if, in these, or any one of a hundred other ways he _resist_, or offer, or _threaten_ to resist the infliction; or, if the master attempt the violation of the slave’s wife, and the husband resist his attempts without the least effort to injure him, but merely to shield his wife from his assaults, this law does not merely permit, but it _authorizes_ the master to murder the slave on the spot.
The brutality of these two provisos brands its authors as barbarians. But the third cause of exemption could not be outdone by the legislation of fiends. ‘DYING under MODERATE _correction_!’ MODERATE _correction_ and DEATH–cause and effect! ‘Provided ALWAYS,’ says the law, ‘this act shall not extend to any slave dying under _moderate correction_!’ Here is a formal proclamation of impunity to murder–an express pledge of _acquittal_ to all slaveholders who wish to murder their slaves, a legal absolution–an indulgence granted before the commission of the crime! Look at the phraseology. Nothing is said of maimings, dismemberments, skull fractures, of severe bruisings, or lacerations, or even of floggings; but a word is used the common-parlance import of which is, _slight chastisement_; it is not even _whipping_, but ‘_correction_’ And as if hypocrisy and malignity were on the rack to outwit each other, even that weak word must be still farther diluted; so ‘_moderate_’ is added: and, to crown the climax, compounded of absurdity, hypocrisy, and cold-blooded murder, the _legal definition_ of ‘moderate correction’ is covertly given; which is, _any punishment_ that KILLS the victim. All inflictions are either _moderate_ or _immoderate_; and the design of this law was manifestly to shield the murderer from conviction, _by carrying on its face the rule for its own interpretation_; thus advertising, beforehand, courts and juries, that the fact of any infliction _producing death_, was no evidence that it was _immoderate_, and that beating a man to death came within the legal meaning of ‘moderate correction!’ The _design_ of the legislature of North Carolina in framing this law is manifest; it was to produce the impression upon the world, that they had so high a sense of justice as voluntarily to grant adequate protection to the lives of their slaves. This is ostentatiously set forth in the preamble, and in the body of the law. That this was the most despicable hypocrisy, and that they had predetermined to grant no such protection, notwithstanding the pains taken to get the _credit_ of it, is fully revealed by the _proviso_, which was framed in such a way as to nullify the law, for the express accommodation of slaveholding gentlemen murdering their slaves. All such find in this proviso a convenient accomplice before the fact, and a packed jury, with a ready-made verdict of ‘not guilty,’ both gratuitously furnished by the government! The preceding law and proviso are to be found in Haywood’s Manual, 530; also in Laws of Tennessee, Act of October 23, 1791; and in Stroud’s Sketch, 37.
Enough has been said already to show, that though the laws of the slave states profess to grant adequate protection to the life of the slave, such professions are mere empty pretence, no such protection being in reality afforded by them. But there is still another fact, showing that all laws which profess to protect the slaves from injury by the whites are a mockery. It is this–that the testimony, neither of a slave nor of a free colored person, is _legal_ testimony against a white. To this rule there is _no exception_ in any of the slave states: and this, were there no other evidence, would be sufficient to stamp, as hypocritical, all the provisions of the codes which _profess_ to protect the slaves. Professing to grant _protection_, while, at the same time, it strips them of the only _means_ by which they can make that protection available! Injuries must be legally _proved_ before they can be legally _redressed_: to deprive men of the power of _proving_ their injuries, is itself the greatest of all injuries; for it not only exposes to all, but invites them, by a virtual guarantee of impunity, and is thus the _author_ of all injuries. It matters not what other laws exist, professing to throw safeguards round the slave–_this_ makes them blank paper. How can a slave prove outrages perpetrated upon him by his master or overseer, when his own testimony and that of all his fellow-slaves, his kindred, associates, and acquaintances, is ruled out of court? and when he is entirely in the _power_ of those who injure him, and when the only care necessary, on their part, is, to see that no _white_ witness is looking on. Ordinarily, but _one_ white man, the overseer, is with the slaves while they are at labor; indeed, on most plantations, to commit an outrage in the _presence_ of a white witness would be more difficult than in their absence. He who wished to commit an illegal act upon a slave, instead of being obliged to _take pains_ and watch for an opportunity to do it unobserved by a white, would find it difficult to do it in the presence of a white if he wished to do so. The supreme court of Louisiana, in their decision, in the case of Crawford vs. Cherry,(15, _Martin’s La. Rep._ 112; also “_Law of Slavery,_” 249,) where the defendant was sued for the value of a slave whom he had shot and killed, say, “The act charged here, is one _rarely_ committed in the presence of _witnesses_,” (whites). So in the case of the State vs. Mann, (_Devereux, N.C. Rep._ 263; and _”Law of Slavery,” _247;) in which the defendant was charged with shooting a slave girl ‘belonging’ to the plaintiff; the Supreme Court of North Carolina, in their decision, speaking of the provocations of the master by the slave, and ‘the consequent wrath of the master’ prompting him to _bloody vengeance_, add, _’a vengeance generally practised with impunity, by reason of its privacy.’_
Laws excluding the testimony of slaves and free colored persons, where a white is concerned, do not exist in all the slave states. One or two of them have no legal enactment on the subject; but, in those, _’public opinion’_ acts with the force of law, and the courts _invariably reject it_. This brings us back to the potency of that oft-quoted ‘public opinion,’ so ready, according to our objector, to do battle for the _protection_ of the slave!
Another proof that ‘public opinion,’ in the slave states, plunders, tortures, and murders the slaves, instead of _protecting_ them, is found in the fact, that the laws of slave states inflict _capital_ punishment on slaves for a variety of crimes, for which, if their masters commit them, the legal penalty is merely _imprisonment_. Judge Stroud in his Sketch of the Laws of Slavery, says, that by the laws of Virginia, there are ‘seventy-one crimes for which slaves are capitally punished though in none of these are whites punished in manner more severe than by imprisonment in the penitentiary.’ (P. 107, where the reader will find all the crimes enumerated.) It should be added, however, that though the penalty for each of these seventy-one crimes is ‘death,’ yet a majority of them are, in the words of the law, ‘death within clergy;’ and in Virginia, _clergyable_ offences, though _technically_ capital, are not so in fact. In Mississippi, slaves are punished capitally for more than _thirty_ crimes, for which whites are punished only by fine or imprisonment, or both. Eight of these are not _recognized as crimes_, either by common law or by statute, when committed by whites. In South Carolina slaves are punished capitally for _nine_ more crimes than the whites–in Georgia, for _six_–and in Kentucky, for _seven_ more than whites, &c. We surely need not detain the reader by comments on this monstrous inequality with which the penal codes of slave states treat slaves and their masters. When we consider that guilt is in proportion to intelligence, and that these masters have by law doomed their slaves to ignorance, and then, as they darkle and grope along their blind way, inflict penalties upon them for a variety of acts regarded as praise worthy in whites; killing them for crimes, when whites are only fined or imprisoned–to call such a ‘public opinion’ inhuman, savage, murderous, diabolical, would be to use tame words, if the English vocabulary could supply others of more horrible import.
But slaveholding brutality does not stop here. While punishing the slaves for crimes with vastly greater severity than it does their masters for the same crimes, and making a variety of acts _crimes_ in law, which are right, and often _duties_, it persists in refusing to make known to the slaves that complicated and barbarous penal code which loads them with such fearful liabilities. The slave is left to get a knowledge of these laws as he can, and cases must be of constant occurrence at the south, in which slaves get their first knowledge of the existence of a law by suffering its penalty. Indeed, this is probably the way in which they commonly learn what the laws are; for how else can the slave get a knowledge of the laws? He cannot _read_–he cannot _learn_ to read; if he try to master the alphabet, so that he may spell out the words of the law, and thus avoid its penalties, the law shakes its terrors at him; while, at the same time, those who made the laws refuse to make them known to those for whom they are designed. The memory of Caligula will blacken with execration while time lasts, because be hung up his laws so high that people could not read them, and then punished them because they did not keep them. Our slaveholders aspire to blacker infamy. Caligula was content with hanging up his laws where his subjects could _see_ them; and if they could not read them, they knew where they were, and might get at them, if, in their zeal to learn his will, they had used the same means to get up to them that those did who hung them there. Even Caligula, wretch as he was, would have shuddered at cutting their legs off, to prevent their climbing to them; or, if they had got there, at boring their eyes out, to prevent their reading them. Our slaveholders